Training and Corrective Action
Joe Wojniak 965
Joined 05/03/2018 - 88 Posts
Why does training get a bad wrap when used as a corrective action?
21 Replies
Amanda Foster 1083
Joined 05/07/2018 - 645 Posts
I think one reason could be that the term training is unspecific and can mean anything unless defined. If training is developed or given as a corrective action, there must be clear ties from the training to the RCA. Also, the effectiveness of the training must be determined and that can be difficult, That said, I think that training can be effective as corrective action if used properly.
Molas Sewarto 11983
Joined 02/06/2020 - 3 Posts
In my operational practice, I always prohibit to put training as corrective action since prior to assignment of a job the worker has been qualified with training. Mean if there is a problem occur a it must be something wrong with the system. It is required to go deep dive on the root cause by why analyses rather than stop in lack of training.
Susan Gorveatte 3050
Joined 08/24/2018 - 12 Posts
Corrective Action is complex. In my experience I have witnessed organizations jump to "retrain" as the only response. It's important to really find out why the existing training (if there was any) wasn't effective and to really dig further into the issue. Training can be a part of the corrective action. Short answer: Shift the process and train on the new process. Thanks Joe for starting this important conversation. 
Carin Perretta 9220
Joined 09/13/2019 - 1 Posts
I agree with Susan that "retrain" is the knee-jerk response to CAs. I have been taught and now teach to dig deeper. Review work instructions, procedures, or even the paperwork the worker is filling out and find the gaps.  Remember, corrective action is a continuous improvement tool that should be used to close gaps in processes. 
Jairo Velasquez 11588
Joined 01/16/2020 - 4 Posts
May it be  a cultural factor in the organization? People see the CA as a punishment rather than the gift it is, opportunity for everyone to become better. 
Byron May 8209
Joined 07/01/2019 - 1 Posts
I would say two main reasons: 1) It relegates the corrective action to human memory, with all of its fragility. Six months later people may not remember everything the trainer said.  2) Also, Normal personnel attrition and turnover means that those who were trained may be gone. And if the new people were not treated the same way the correct of action is lost. Instead of just training, the correct of action should be built into the process and procedures which are reviewed regularly and followed closely by veteran employees and also the first thing we hand to new employees. 
David Husman 10926
Joined 12/10/2019 - 1 Posts
Joe, Fundamentally Training gets the bad rap because more often than not it is symptomatic that the Deviation investigation and root cause analysis process did not get to the root cause of the problem and thus training alone will not solve the problem. When more than 90% of the root causes identified are personnel error and the corrective action is re-train - there is a failure to understand the process was designed (hopefully) with human operators in mind and the training program was designed (again hopefully) to instruct the operators in running the process. When the process fails - is it the process or a bad training program? By jumping to training as the corrective action, you simply magnify the problem instead of one problem (the one you are trying to fix) you now have two (the original problem and why did the training program not work).
Glen Pullin 3941
Joined 10/17/2018 - 3 Posts
Training can be the issue of the larger problem (training process) - most cases not.  Ask yourself = does the person have the knowledge and ability to do the task correctly?  If so, training will not help.  Look at the process and use Poky-Yoke, (mistake proofing) to change the process (design) so errors cannot happen or you can discover them quicker in the process so not to pass them on.
Shane Macquarrie 9734
Joined 10/07/2019 - 5 Posts
Training, by itself, points to a deficiency in your program. 
If you couple training with an assessment and/or some revision of your ongoing program to prevent this deficiency from occurring again, then it should be a viable option. 

 You need to look beyond this single incident and see why it was allowed to begin with.
Kelly Gau 3002
Joined 08/22/2018 - 4 Posts
I agree with the previous responses. The purpose of the investigation is to define the root cause(s). The purpose of the corrective action is to address that/those identified root cause(s). Unless lack of training is identified as your root cause, retraining should rarely be used as a corrective action. And if it is, that opens up a whole other issue, where a CAPA should be used to address why there was a lack of training in the first place (unless that was also identified in the deviation). I review many deviations/non-conformances from many different organizations (we outsource work), and typically we see training as a band aid response. If there is training in place already, why was that initial training not effective? Why would retraining be any more effective? Would those who are not part of the "retraining" (i.e. new hires) be aware of the issue identified in the the deviation/non-conformance, or will the issue be repeated if only trained using the same initial training method? Tribal knowledge is never a robust method for transferring information, so if the expectation is that you can reinforce something by repeating it that isn't clear initially, from an external perspective, that seems dubious. As a side note, human error should also rarely be a root cause. If people are making mistakes, it probably isn't because they want to. There is probably something with the process that is not clear, or a hindrance of some sort that should be identified and improved to ensure they are able to perform without error. That would be the actual root cause. Again, this is why retraining is frowned upon. It implies the true root cause has not been identified.

When we push back on training as a CA, it is often because we have seen a repeat occurrence of the deviation elsewhere, or see the risk of a repeat when there is not an additional change implemented to the system.